Three of these men were on my PHX-MSP flight two days prior to this incident. Since 9/11 I have had many, many, many people of middle eastern descent on my flights and NONE of them ever made me feel uncomfortable....but these three definitely did. They did not chant, they did not pray....but they did do some things that almost got them removed from my flight although nothing near what they did on the return flight. I can completely understand the crew asking for security to come to the aircraft.
Imans strike back
- Thread starter Nachtjäger
- Start date
flyJOE
Advanced
I just hope that US doesn't give in and do the standard out of court settlement that is typical of corporate America trying to get rid of the story.
I would be interested to hear all of the facts and not just the side of the imams and CAIR.
Since we're speaking of intolerance here, did you know that CAIR kicked out CBN (Christian Broadcasting News) from covering the lawsuit press conference yesterday?
I would be interested to hear all of the facts and not just the side of the imams and CAIR.
Since we're speaking of intolerance here, did you know that CAIR kicked out CBN (Christian Broadcasting News) from covering the lawsuit press conference yesterday?
marco90821
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 0
The fact that they are militant is reason enough for me. The proof is certainly there that they practice hatred against the United States. They definitely are not protesting 09/11/2001.
This snippet taken from this article.
But most disturbing, these imams aren’t the fringe. Shahin’s group, the North American Imams Federation, represents more than 150 mosque leaders across the country. It works in concert with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which wasted no time slamming US Airways for “stereotyping†Muslims and calling on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Both CAIR and NAIF work closely with Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim member of Congress. Conveniently enough, he immediately stepped in on their behalf to pressure US Airways and the local airport to change security policies.
If it were an orchestrated stunt to create public sympathy and force airports to look the other way when groups of Muslim men fly, it’s working. The Minneapolis airport plans to add a prayer room for Muslims, and Democrats plan to hold hearings on Muslim profiling. This could have a chilling effect on efforts to investigate terror suspects in the Muslim community.
But most disturbing, these imams aren’t the fringe. Shahin’s group, the North American Imams Federation, represents more than 150 mosque leaders across the country. It works in concert with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which wasted no time slamming US Airways for “stereotyping†Muslims and calling on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Both CAIR and NAIF work closely with Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim member of Congress. Conveniently enough, he immediately stepped in on their behalf to pressure US Airways and the local airport to change security policies.
If it were an orchestrated stunt to create public sympathy and force airports to look the other way when groups of Muslim men fly, it’s working. The Minneapolis airport plans to add a prayer room for Muslims, and Democrats plan to hold hearings on Muslim profiling. This could have a chilling effect on efforts to investigate terror suspects in the Muslim community.
marco90821
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 0
We really need, as US citizens, to stand up against all Muslims. None of them believe in our system of government or freedom of religion.
I was right on board with you until you posted that rather ignorant, narrow-minded and foolish statement.
To link the 1.6 billion people who call themselves Muslims with the very few willing to use terror as a tactic would be like linking all Christians to the likes of Tim McVeight, Ann Coulter, or the few violent members of the Christian "right".
The question is, how do terrorists act?
If a FA gave a passenger a direct order and they disobeyed, then, by all means, give them the boot. That does not make them "terrorists". If a passenger asked for a seat-belt extension, and they did not use it, how is that grounds for anything?
If you are really interested in learning more about the dangers of profiling, try reading some of the relevant articles on this website:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
2clippedwings
Veteran
I agree with your assertion and the motive behind the lawsuit.
I think that ussnark enjoys baiting people to respond (yes, I've followed this thread from the beginning) so that he/she can then slam their supposed lack of research, knowledge, understanding, compassion, tolerance etc.
Pity the "fool" who doesn't agree with him/her.
I have yet to hear the imam and CAIR "side". Have you?
And why should they not? CBN, pwned by Pat Robertson, yes, PTL 700 Club Pat, who has called for the assassination of world leaders, blamed WTC bombings on gays and was part owner in a Liberian diamond mines that "employed" slaves.
Perhaps CAIR is treating CBN like they should be treated, as a terrorist organization.
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
Because it’s suspicious behavior.
Then they all died in vain, Bob, if that is your attitude. A rational person would be very afraid.
I am asking, what is suspicious behavior? The "seat belt extension suspicious behavior" is a canard. Obviously, asking for a seat belt extension is not suspicious behavior. Or, is it? What about moving around the cabin? With a lack of evidence to the contrary, apparently no FA told them to return to their seats, therefore, what suspicious behavior occurred, Bob? or apparently you have not traveled on US with a large contingent of visitors who rearrange seating before push.
If you, or anyone else finds evidence of wrongdoing, I'll be happy to lead the charge. But, until you do, you are simply bloviating bigotry into the air.
With you 100%.
"from", not "form".
We differ. You lower yourself to the basest of animals.
So, you would agree that when the CSA sent terrorists to NYC and burned entire blocks of buildings, killing hundreds, that it would have been okay to scorch the entire South, killing all men, women, children and animals?
By Pentagon estimates, less than 3% of the freedom fighter/insurgents in Iraq have any possible connection to Al Quaeda. Not one Iraqi had anything to do with 11Sep01. I might suggest that the cost to us is not just the $3 trillion, so far, not counting the 50,000 disabled vets, so far, but a new crop of terrorists we are grooming through our actions in Iraq.
One good solution is to jail every member of AIPAC, then extradite every member who is a citizen of countries in addition to/other than the US. Declare their lobby defunct, seize their assets. and quite acting as a proxy for the Likud.
Not certain I understand "rage of Islamic Fundamentalists". Can you show where all or even most IFs have rage? How do you explain Christians and Jews living with and participating in society in southern Lebanon, as members of Hezbollah? How do you explain Christians and Jews living and mingling with Shiite society? How do you explain that under Islam, Christians and Jews are, indeed, considered, as with Muslims, "chosen people"? and, I am sure you can give examples of Muslims interdicting Christians/Jews as I can show you Christians interdicting Christians and Jews interdicting Jews.
I agree the problem is complex. We just don't need to make it more so. Invading Iraq for no reason made quelling terrorism infinitely more complex and costly. I agreed with invading Afghanistan, especially with global aid. Turning our attention to a country that was no threat to us and "forgetting" our initial target, bin Laden, was unforgivable.
Thanks for going to the site. Mr. Schneier is remarkably responsive as well as considered an expert on many security matters, his somewhat, seemingly, eccentric attention to squids aside.
USCREW
Veteran
You seem to be the only one here who doesn't think that this is odd behaviour. These six men travelled together and decided to split up and change seats to span the entire aircraft; then they requested extensions, not for their seats...
While their behaviour was not illegal, it is not the norm--far from it. I would have done exactly what the crew did and if these men were not removed, I would have gotten off.
Consider I have encountered a number of different sizes of seat belts on US and I have helped at least several passengers who thought they needed seat belt extensions, but, on finding out one belt was doubled up under their seat cushion, they did not.
and, had you thought this through, just a little bit, you would have realized that the removal of the alleged troublemakers (AT) occurred before push. Nobody has stated anything about anyone needing to have seat belts fastened, yet. So, there would be doubt about whether the AT even tried their seat belts. (Were the extensions placed under the seat in front of them or under their own seat?)
All I am saying is wait for the evidence before you "convict" anyone. PineyBob has already stated that he is willing to nuke them into glass, letting God sort them out. I say, per the Old Testament (this applies to you too, Bob), "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." That means, to me, vengeance belongs to God, only. Not us. YMMV.
USCREW
Veteran
I'm afraid that we don't have this luxury anymore.
Yes of course. When its demonstrated that the "AT"'s behavior was the cause of suspicions being raised, rather than their appearance or race, then the behavior has to be deseminated and amazingly implausible excuses given.
I can guarantee you I've been on more aircraft than you, and I can honestly say I have never seen a person who wasn't of size ask for a seatbelt extension. Never. Let alone 3 on the same flight, traveling within the same group. They didn't realize their seat belts were long enough? They didn't realize their seatbelts were tucked under the seat? Are you serious? Your entire argument has dissolved into ridiculous alibis.
YOU consider:
1. The AT's prayed, publicly and loudly, prior to boarding
2. They dispersed throughout the aircraft, out of their assigned seats, in a manner consistent with the 9/11 hijackers.
3. They asked for seat belt extensions when none of them appeared to need it.
4. They were overheard criticising the United States in a manner and language similar to Islamic terrorists.
Of course none of these actions is illegal, and none would have resulted in the authorities having any justification for bringing charges. Taken together, however, and in the context of an airline flight (a mode of transportation that has been continuously targeted by Islamic fundamentalists, prior to and since 9/11) it is obvious that such actions would warrant suspicion. All the alibis in the world aren't going to change that.
Why?
What makes this different than any other phase of human recorded history? What makes this generation so special that we need to kill innocents in order to "secure" our security? and how does that interface with Ben Franklins issue of giving up our freedoms to grant "security" and we deserve neither freedom nor security?
